Doran v. The State Of New York, 1:15-cv-07217

Background

Plaintiffs (Doran, Baez, Shaporov, Linn) are OMIG employees in the Division of Medicaid Investigations who sued individual OMIG managers for employment discrimination (age, race, national origin, sex, Jewish ancestry), retaliation, and hostile‑work‑environment under § 1983, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL (and Doran asserted an ADEA injunctive claim against Rosen).
Multiple promotions/appointments during DMIG Anna Coschignano’s tenure are focal: Canade (Jan 2013 MI‑3, external/alternate recruitment/Governor referral), Bedell (June 2013 MI‑3, internal, interviewed/scored), Rizzo (Apr 2014 MI‑4), and Cheriyan (Sept 2014 MI‑3, alternate recruitment).
Key documentary and testimonial evidence: interview panels and scores for posted positions; evidence Coschignano drafted interview questions and influenced panels; statements by a supervisor that Coschignano wanted “young blood”; records showing some hires were Governor referrals or external; limited statistical evidence about hires’ ancestry.
Court addressed personal‑involvement and abandonment issues: many claims dismissed where plaintiffs failed to oppose arguments or show a defendant’s personal participation.
Summary judgment disposition: granted in part, denied in part. Surviving claims: (1) Doran and Linn — age discrimination (NYSHRL & NYCHRL) against Coschignano re Bedell’s June 2013 MI‑3 promotion; (2) Doran, Baez, Linn — retaliation (§ 1983, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) against Coschignano, Byrnes, and Coyne re Cheriyan’s Sept 2014 appointment; (3) Shaporov — NYCHRL hostile work environment against Rizzo (anti‑Russian remarks / treatment); and (4) Doran’s ADEA injunctive claim against Rosen (unchallenged). All other claims were dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to promote — Canade (Jan 2013 MI‑3)	Plaintiffs: external appointment denied internal, was pretext for race/national origin/age/Jewish/sex discrimination	Defendants: urgent management need + Governor referral + alternate recruitment; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason	Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to show pretext or discrimination; many theories abandoned or unsupported
Failure to promote — Bedell (June 2013 MI‑3)	Doran & Linn: Bedell (much younger) promoted despite being similarly or less qualified; evidence of preselection and age bias ("young blood")	Defendants: panel interviews and higher scores explain promotion	Survives — Doran and Linn’s age claims under NYSHRL & NYCHRL survive due to triable issues on pretext and discriminatory motive
Failure to promote — Rizzo (Apr 2014 MI‑4)	Doran & Shaporov: passed over because of national origin / favoritism	Defendants: panel interviews, references, best candidate	Dismissed — plaintiffs did not show pretext or discriminatory motive
Failure to promote — Cheriyan (Sept 2014 MI‑3)	Plaintiffs: appointment was a retaliatory "band‑aid" after discrimination complaints	Defendants: Cheriyan had supervisory involvement; appointment justified as alternate recruitment	Discrimination claims dismissed/abandoned; but appointment is central to surviving retaliation claims
Retaliation — promotion of Cheriyan after plaintiffs filed grievances	Plaintiffs: filed discrimination complaints Feb 2014; Cheriyan promoted Sept 2014 as retaliation; documentary and testimonial evidence (temporal proximity, statements, selection process irregularities)	Defendants: legitimate staffing reasons; joint decision by managers	Survives — retaliation claims against Coschignano, Byrnes, Coyne (§ 1983, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) survive (prima facie, pretext/but‑for issues)
Hostile work environment — Shaporov v. Rizzo	Shaporov: repeated anti‑Russian comments, denials of car/overtime, public accusations — treated ‘‘less well’’ because of national origin	Rizzo: denies discriminatory motive; disputes facts	Survives (NYCHRL) — jury could find Rizzo treated Shaporov less well because of national origin; NYCHRL standard is broader
Individual liability / personal involvement	Plaintiffs: hold multiple managers individually liable	Defendants: many lacked personal involvement or acted reasonably when alerted; some claims not pursued	Many claims dismissed for lack of personal involvement or abandonment (e.g., Cox, Tompkins, Chiesa, Rizzo on some claims); individual liability requires personal participation or deliberate indifference

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate‑treatment claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; materiality and genuine dispute)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (employer’s burden of production and plaintiff must show pretext and discriminatory intent)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (McDonnell framework applies to § 1983 disparate‑treatment claims)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL construed broadly; "treated less well" standard)
Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (caution on summary judgment when employer intent is disputed)
Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguish reasonable inferences from speculation in discrimination cases)
Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (prima facie elements for retaliation)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation causation and temporal proximity)
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (close temporal proximity and inconsistent explanations can create triable retaliation issues)
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (plaintiff must show employer’s proffered reason false and that discrimination was real reason)
Pollis v. New Sch. for Soc. Research, 132 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1997) (limits of statistical evidence from small samples)